Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!ukc!stc!root44!jgh
From: jgh@root.co.uk (Jeremy G Harris)
Newsgroups: sci.electronics
Subject: Re: FM audio recording?
Message-ID: <430@root44.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 16-Sep-87 05:16:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: root44.430
Posted: Wed Sep 16 05:16:19 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Sep-87 18:52:03 EDT
References: <3746d52b.b8ab@apollo.uucp>
Reply-To: jgh@root44.UUCP (Jeremy G Harris)
Organization: Root Computers Ltd, London, England
Lines: 13
Keywords: FM tape
Summary: Lack of bandwidth

In article <3746d52b.b8ab@apollo.uucp> rees@apollo.uucp (Jim Rees) writes:
>How come FM was never widely used for audio recording?

You lose out so much on the bandwidth that the tape costs would be
exorbitant. FM trades performance across a noisy channel for bandwidth
of the encoded signal. Audio-quality FM is wideband. Narrow-band FM
is occasionally used in comms, but is just as susceptible as AM to
noise (TANSTAAFL). The encoded bandwidth is something like
2B + D where B= encoding signal bandwidth  and  D= deviation

Jeremy
-- 
Jeremy Harris			jgh@root.co.uk